Vanyi v. Portland Flouring Mills Co.

• Decision Date: 31 December 1912
• Citation: 63 Or. 520,128 P. 830
• Parties: VANYI v. PORTLAND FLOURING MILLS CO.
• Court: Oregon Supreme Court

128 P. 830

63 Or. 520

VANYI v. PORTLAND FLOURING MILLS CO.

Supreme Court of Oregon

December 31, 1912

Appeal from Circuit Court, Multnomah County; W.N. Gatens, Judge.

Action by Louis Vanyi against the Portland Flouring Mills Company, a corporation. From judgment for plaintiff, defendant appeals. Affirmed.

This is an action to recover damages for personal injuries. The cause was tried before a jury. A verdict was rendered in favor of plaintiff, and a judgment entered thereon, from which defendant appeals.

On March 28, 1910, plaintiff, with R.M. Austin, J.W. Bennett and James S. Church, was engaged in hoisting a motor in defendant's flouring mill, when the chain, which was wound around a timber and supporting the chain block and tackle used in hoisting the motor broke, and the block fell on plaintiff. Plaintiff alleges that the defendant was negligent, causing the injury, in hooking the chain block into only one of the two loops of the chain; that the chain by reason of its age, condition, and previous use, and by reason of being so hooked, was not sufficient to hold the weight of the motor or dynamo and chain block, and was too weak and insecure to make safe the method, means, and appliances by which the chain block was to be held in place while raising the motor; that plaintiff, being above the third floor, was where he could not see how the chain block was hooked, and had no knowledge of the defective fastening or the inefficiency of the chain, which plaintiff alleges was not reasonably safe. The estimated weight of the motor was about five tons. This machine was on the first floor of the mill, and, in order to raise it upon a platform made for that purpose, the men made an aperture in the second and third floors of the mill, and placed the large timber across the opening in the third floor to support the chain. Then, with a small wooden block and tackle, they raised a large iron chain block weighing about 300 pounds, to the under side of the third floor, and Church, the man in charge of the work reached down through that floor and hooked the block into one strand of the chain. Vanyi carried the chain to the third floor, and was there when the block was hooked to the same but could not see how it was fastened. Vanyi and Church then went down to the second floor. The lower block was fastened to the motor, the chains connecting the two blocks extending through the opening in the second floor. The four men on that floor commenced to pull on the end of the fall chain to raise the motor, where a piece of flange on one of the pulleys of the upper chain block broke, and Austin stood upon some machinery near the head block, to guide the chain in the pulley, leaving the three men to pull on the fall chain. In order to properly get hold of the chain, plaintiff seated himself on the floor. When the men pulled two or three times on the tackle, without lifting or budging the motor, the chain supporting the upper block broke, and the block fell, striking Church a light blow, then hitting plaintiff and injuring him.

Plaintiff had been employed by defendant for about five years as a miller. Shortly prior to the injury defendant's mill was partially burned, and Vanyi, plaintiff, was sent to Tacoma, Wash., to work for defendant in its mill there. Later he was called back to Portland, and assigned duties as a laborer, to aid in remodeling and rehabilitating the company's mill, which involved the lifting of the motor, as well as other machinery. Vanyi had had no experience as a mechanic, and was not acquainted with the tensile strength of chains or mechanical apparatus. The chain blocks consisted of two pieces of iron and carried various pulleys, around which passed a chain. The upper chain block is called the head block, and the lower, the foot block. There is a hook on the upper side of the head block and one on the lower side of the foot block. The sling chain had been a part of a 30-foot chain, which had been used, prior to the time of the injury, to raise the motor from the basement, where it had fallen at the time of the fire. The motor had been sent to a shop on board a car for repair, and returned to the mill in the same manner. It was rolled on skids from the car to the first floor of the mill. When the motor was first raised, it was so imbedded in the débris that two attempts were made before success was attained. This subjected the sling chain to a terrific strain. Afterwards the 30-foot chain was cut into three lengths of about 10 feet each, and hooks put on the ends. These short chains were used in moving the machinery. About two or three days before the catastrophe complained of Mr. Church was superintending the raising of an electric motor smaller than the one referred to. When the large motor was first lifted, six or eight men pulled on the fall chain. Mr. Brown was the head miller, superintending the reconstruction of the mill.

C.J. Devero's testimony relating to the chain was about as follows: "Q. Were you engaged at one time prior thereto in assisting in raising of any machinery, and, if so, state what machinery? A. Yes, sir; it was a motor. Q. What kind of a motor? A. I don't know the name of it. It was an electric motor, weighing probably in the neighborhood of three tons. Q. And, in a general way, what was it known as, what kind of a motor? A. A receiving motor. Q. Who was the boss in charge of the handling of that? A. Mr. Jim Church. Q. How was it raised, by what means? A. With block and tackle, chain block. Q. I will ask you if it had a sling chain, by which the block was attached. A. We were using a sling at the time; yes, sir. Q. About what kind of a chain was it? A. Just a common chain, I judge half inch to five-eights chain, as near as I remember. I didn't pay particular attention to it. Q. I will ask you to look at this chain and state whether or not this is like the chain that was being used. I mean with reference to the thickness [referring to defendant's Exhibit A]. A. Yes; the thickness and everything is very similar to the chain. Q. Now, how about the identification and the description of it now of the chain, does that resemble the chain you did use? A. Resembles the chain; yes, sir. Q. Who was in charge of the lifting of the motor at that time--what, if anything, did you say to Jim Church with reference to that particular chain or its use? (Objected to as immaterial, irrelevant and incompetent. Objection overruled. Exception taken.) Q. Just tell the jury what you said to Jim Church at that time. A. We were raising it, and I noticed a defect in one of the links, and I said, 'There is a bad link in that chain there;' and I said, 'The best thing to do is to throw that in the river when the motor is landed.' " (Vanyi was not present when the defective link was mentioned.) On cross-examination: "Q. You spoke of a link that did not look good to you. I will ask you what you were using the chain for that day in your work? A. Using it in raising that motor. Q. In what way? A. I don't just remember what position we had it in. We had it with a good deal of strain on the motor. Q. For all you can now recall, this chain you saw the link in that day may have been fastened around the motor, might it not then, when they got hold of the motor to lift it? A. Yes, sir. Q. Or it may have been on the third floor when the hook of the iron chain was hooked in it? A. I do not know positively. I know we had the strain of the motor on it when I made the remark, is all I know about it. Q. Now, Mr. Devero, do you know where this chain came from you used that day, do you know anything about that? A. I don't. Q. Is there any way you know of that you can positively identify this chain you looked at as the chain you worked with that day? A. Well, from all general appearances it looks like the chain we had. Q. But do you know? A. Oh, there is a little fringe on the link I spoke of that I don't see there. Q. But would you be willing to testify positively that this chain here you looked at was the chain you called Church's attention to that day--can you answer to that positively? A. I would not swear to it positively; lots of times chains are alike. I say it looks like the chain we were using."

James S. Church testified, in substance, as follows: "Q. You heard Mr. Devero's testimony here this morning, did you? A. Yes, sir. Q. Do you recall him calling your attention to a bad link in that chain? A. I do. Q. Do you recall anybody calling your attention to a bad link in that chain? A. Yes; we were hoisting the rolls into the mill, that part of the mill, and used this chain to put around the rolls. Q. What chain? A. Well, one of these parts. My attention was called to a broken link. I immediately took the chain off and threw it to one side and got a rope, and the chain was not used at all afterwards. Q. Did anybody, either Devero or anybody else, ever call your attention to any defective link in this chain here? (Referring to defendant's Exhibit A.) A. Not to my knowledge. Q. Did you ever notice anything wrong with this chain before the accident? A. I did not."

Mr. Church stated, in substance, that the other two chains were used in handling the heavy machinery around the mill, among which was a "shieve" weighing about two tons; that he could not say how long the chain had been in the possession of the company; that he had been with the company 27 years; that he made no examination of the chain either before or after it was cut up.

Mr. E.L. Taylor, a blacksmith, testified on behalf of defendant that he cut off two links of the chain (not the broken links), and found it was made of pretty good iron; that it looked like a good chain; that a chain may be overstrained in one lift.

Mr G.B. Hegardt, a civil engineer, deposed that the chain appeared...